Who is the best coach of all time? A network-based assessment of the career performance of professional sports coaches S¸irag Erkol1 and Filippo Radicchi1 1Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408, USA We consider two large datasets consisting of all games played among top-tier European soccer clubs in the last 60 years, and among professional American basketball teams in the past 70 years. We leverage game data to build networks of pairwise interactions between the head coaches of the teams, and measure their ca- reer performance in terms of network centrality metrics. We identify Ars`eneWenger, Sir Alex Ferguson, Jupp Heynckes, Carlo Ancelotti, and Jos´eMourinho as the top 5 European soccer coaches of all time. In Amer- ican basketball, the first 5 positions of the all-time ranking are occupied by Red Auerbach, Gregg Popovich, Phil Jackson, Don Nelson, and Lenny Wilkens. We further establish rankings by decade and season. We de- velop a simple methodology to monitor performance throughout a coach’s career, and to dynamically com- pare the performance of two or more coaches at a given time. The manuscript is accompanied by the website coachscore.luddy.indiana.edu where complete results of our analysis are accessible to the interested read- ers. I. INTRODUCTION [17–19], and various other sports [20–24]. The current pa- per explores the possibility of leveraging network centrality metrics to gauge career performance of coaches in two pro- In a standard soccer league, teams are ranked on the basis fessional sports: soccer and basketball. There are no well- of the total number of points they gather during the season. established metrics of performance for sports coaches, espe- Points are assigned to teams depending on the outcome of in- cially when the focus is on extended periods of time such as dividual games they take part in. All teams play the same those corresponding to entire careers. One could be tempted total number of games in the league by generally facing each to evaluate career performance by simply counting the num- other twice through the season. This is a simple, effective, and ber of trophies won by coaches. However, the importance of a fair method to measure team performance in a single season. trophy (e.g., an international cup) compared to another (e.g., However, this standard metric does not differentiate the qual- a national championship) is hardly quantifiable, and, even for ity of a result depending on the opponent faced in the game. the same trophy, may vary from season to season depending For example, beating a championship contender has the same on several factors. Also, the actual number of coaches with importance as beating a team that is positioned low in the at least a trophy won during their career is a small fraction of league standings. Also, the metric is not designed to prop- the total number of coaches that managed professional teams, erly measure performance over arbitrary time windows, e.g., thus making the counting of trophies a recipe not very use- a portion of a season or the aggregate of multiple seasons. ful for the quantification of performance for the vast majority A simple way to partially address the above-mentioned is- of coaches. One could evaluate performance on other events, sues and go beyond the mere counting of points is relying e.g., number of wins, rank positions in leagues, etc. How- on a macroscopic perspective of the league, where individual ever, the difficulty of properly quantifying the relative impor- games are not seen as events that are independent one from tance of the various elementary events would be exacerbated the other, rather they are all seen as elementary contacts form- by a multitude of potential factors, e.g., type of competition, ing a complex network of interactions. The importance of season, strength of the team trained, etc. The motivation be- a team in the web of contacts is self-established by the very hind our approach is indeed avoiding to make any compli- structure of the network. The spirit is similar to the one used cated choice about the specific value to be assigned to the el- in attempts of gauging the importance of web pages in in- ementary events, and measure the performance of individual formation networks [1, 2], establishing the relevance of pa- coaches in a self-contained manner by leveraging the structure pers [3], scientists [4] and journals [5] in scientific networks, of the head-to-head network among coaches. and measuring the influence of individuals [6–9] in social net- We are not the first to consider the problem of measuring works. Standard metrics of performance, such as the counting the performance of sports coaches. However, the number of of points and/or wins, can be easily reconciled with local cen- existing studies is quite limited. One of the most analyzed trality metrics, e.g., in-degree and in-strength [7, 10]. How- problems is the effect of sacking coaches, either during or at ever, non-local metrics of centrality may allow to capture dif- arXiv:2012.09270v2 [physics.soc-ph] 27 Apr 2021 the end of a season, on the short- or long-term performance of ferent aspects of performance [7]. In particular, metrics such teams [25–28]. We are aware of only two papers focusing on as the Bonacich [11] and the PageRank [1] centralities allow the analysis of coaches’ career performance. Xu et al. use a to weigh the quality of wins and the quality of the opponents Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solu- with simple, but reasonable self-consistent recipes. tion (TOPSIS) model to rank college basketball coaches [29]. Graph-based metrics of performance for teams and/or play- Hu et al. consider data envelopment analysis and PageRank ers have already been applied to soccer [12–16], basketball for ranking coaches in college sports [30]. 2 As in Hu et al. [30], also here we use PageRank as the main the outcome of the game, either a win by one of the two metric of performance for sports coaches. However, we differ- teams or a tie, and the day when the game was played. We entiate from the work by Hu et al. in two main respects. First, uniquely identified all professional teams that took part in at Hu et al. arbitrarily weigh the importance of games on the ba- least one edition of the above-mentioned leagues since sea- sis of exogenous factors. In our approach, each game has the son 1980=81. For some leagues, we were able to trace back same a priori importance; the effective value of a game is an matches played since 1960=61. Also, we included games emerging property of the system, depending on the quality of of major European competitions that were played between the opponents that are facing each other in the game. Second, the teams belonging to the top five European leagues. We Hu et al. consider datasets that regard games in the American considered the UEFA Champions League (previously named college baseball, basketball and football leagues from 1990 to Champion Clubs’ Cup), the UEFA Europa League (previously 2013. These data permit the construction of networks con- named UEFA Cup), the UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup, and the sisting of less than 100 nodes. Our data span over temporal UEFA Super Cup (see Table VII for abbreviations). For con- windows longer than 60 years and allow us to build networks sistency with the data for the national leagues, we disregarded composed of more than 1; 000 nodes. The data further allows the results of extra times (or penalties), and only considered us to leverage dynamical ranking techniques to monitor entire the results of the regular 90-minute time even if the games career trajectories of many coaches. went to the extra times. The last season included in the dataset The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we pro- for all competitions is the 2019=20 season. vide details of data selection, acquisition and curation, we describe how information from the individual games is ag- League Country Start Matches Coaches gregated to form dynamic, directed, and weighted networks Premier League England 1970=71 20; 713 364 among coaches, and we illustrate the recipe at the basis of the Ligue 1 France 1980=81 14; 709 286 network centrality metric used to measure the performance of Bundesliga Germany 1963=64 17; 375 404 coaches. In section III, we present our rankings of coaches. We consider all-time rankings, and top coaches of decades Serie A Italy 1960=61 18; 144 350 and seasons. Also, we use dynamic rankings to monitor career La Liga Spain 1960=61 20; 304 492 trajectories of individual coaches. In section IV, we provide European cups - 1980=81 2; 043 370 our final considerations. Robustness of our results to some Total - 1960=61 93; 288 1; 777 of the ingredients used in our ranking recipe are provided in Combined - 1980=81 72; 981 1; 438 appendix B. Additional results are available on the website coachscore.luddy.indiana.edu . The website allows in- terested readers to generate custom rankings, and to visualize Table I. Summary table for the soccer dataset. From left to right, career trajectories of all coaches included in our set of data. we report the name of the national league and the country of the league, the first season included in our dataset (all data have been collected till season 2019=20), the number of matches of the league II.